Competencies A Unifying Thread for Education, Practice and Public Protection

I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the ongoing discourse about professional competencies, social work regulation, and social work education. In 2012, the Canadian Council of Social Work Regulators (CCSWR) developed an Entry-Level Competency Profile for the social work profession in response to the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT), which ensured inter-provincial mobility for registered social workers. While the Entry-Level Competency profile was the culmination of a series of debates, panels, and roundtables the establishment of the competency profile by no means concluded the debate or dispelled the fears associated with a competency framework; particularly for social work educators. In this paper, I aim to continue to develop the conversation by forwarding a perspective that views entry-level competencies in social work practice as a natural extension of existing educational practices. In November 2012, the British Columbia College of Social Workers (BCCSW) accepted the CCSWR Canadian Competency profile and signalled to social work educators and the social work community three initiatives: the implementation of a mandatory continuing professional development program, the removal of health authority exemptions from the act, and the implementation of an entry to practice licensure exam. All of these strategies were predicated on a continuous learning, professional, and accountable paradigm. BC was not alone in its initiative to incorporate the concept of competency into professional, regulated practice. For example, in Alberta, the Standards of Practice now articulate that “a social worker is responsible to provide competent professional services to all clients” (Alberta College of Social Workers, 2013, B.2(c)). Professional accountability occurs through legislation in virtually all health, and indeed, in many non-health professions. Regulatory legislation ensures the general public that service providers are members of the profession they purport to be, and further serves as a primary mechanism for service users to have a reasonable expectation of competency. However, in BC, social workers in exempt agencies, such as the Ministry of Children and Family Development and School Districts, may not be educated or registered as social workers. This means that while consumers can be assured nurses are nurses, teachers are teachers, and physiotherapists are physiotherapists, the same is not true in social work. For the consumer, there is no automatic complaint process or regulatory protection from unethical, incompetent, or sub-standard social work services. Effective September 1, 2015, the BCCSW implemented a mandatory entry to practice exam. This initiative required extensive dialogue between the College and the universities, and for some academics has re-ignited the competency framework debate. In general, the arguments against the development of social work competency frameworks are that they are reductionist, mechanistic, and erode complex judgements; furthermore, they negate the social justice aspect of social work in which government policy is examined and critiqued (Aronson & Hemingway, 2011; Campbell, 2011; Rossiter & Heron, 2011). Rebuttal arguments in favour of competency frameworks are that competency models can provide transparent blueprints for what students can expect to learn and what practitioners have a responsibility to master (Bogo, Mishna, & Regehr, 2011) and ensure the delivery of high quality social work services to the public (Birnbaum & Silver, 2011). Social work programs at universities in Canada are accredited through the Canadian Association for Social Work Education / Association canadienne pour la formation en travail social (CASWE-ACFTS). This process is mostly uncontested, and is an accepted and even revered aspect of providing social work education. In Canada, CASWE-ACFTS provides accreditation on educational policies, standards and procedures, and reviews standards in four domains: Program Mission and Goals; Program Governance, Structure and Resources; Program Content: Curriculum and Field Education; and Program Evaluation/Assessment. This approach is consistent with a quality management system …